Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Middle School Gifted Programs

My DD9's 1st grade teacher was the only one who made it work. (in our experience) She did reading and Math test for all the kids in the class and she put them 4 to 5 groups (some in different Math group and reading groups) and gave them appropriate instruction and class work. I was so impressed because my DD was coming home with 4th grade level reading books and 3rd grade level Math homework. And I found that other kids got different homework as well. I couldn't imagine how she found time to do all those differentiation. Well, it lasted for all of 3 months. Some parents complained that their kids did not get the attention that they need (the teacher spent same amount of time for advance kids who is doing >2nd grade work). She took maternity leave as well and that was it.

Same room differentiation is quite hard especially with large student/teacher ratio.

I suspect what is happening here is that while the gifted kids at the upper levels of ability in the class are pulled out, the group of kids left in the mixed-ability class is taught at a pace/level that the lower ability kids are able to keep up with. There is a continuum of abilities in any one given mixed-ability classroom, and while we're here parenting kids at the upper upper end, there are also a lot of kids (at least in my district) who are in-between low average and not-quite-across-the-borderline-gifted who are also sitting in mixed-ability classrooms not being taught to their ability level. As a parent, I want my children to be able to work at an appropriate level of challenge, whether or not my child is PG, HG, MG or not-at-all-G but still quite capable of learning more than is being taught.


This has sorta-kinda worked for my ds - and it's dependent (imo) on the teachers. He's had great teachers in his current school who push all of the students to think deeper. I am not quite sure how to explain what happens, but I can see the results in his thought processes, in his writing, and in the effort he wants to put into his work. It's not ideal (and he will tell you he wants more than anything to be in class with "the smart students") but he has been challenged and he has learned quite a bit and he's been much happier with these teachers than he was in his previous school where it felt to him like the majority of classroom time was spent either managing (in a reactive rather than proactive way) kids who were always goofing off or simply having mind-numbingly boring discussions.

I feel like *I* had some positive in-class differentiation back when I was in elementary and middle school, but I think it was partly due to living in a less pc-time when people weren't as quick to complain about ability-grouping. Part of it is also personality and social situation. I liked knowing I was in the top groups - it gave me a sense of accomplishment (we had to work to stay there - if we goofed off and didn't do our work we would end up moving down, even if we were uber-smart and knew everything - so it wasn't entirely 100% about ability, it had a piece of achievement and work ethic tied to it). I also liked that I had friends in my top group - usually the same consistent set of friends, 2 girls that I lived near enough to that we could be playmates outside of school.

The classroom situations I remember liking a lot were ability grouping for reading in early elementary and math in particular in middle school. It's not the subjects that set them apart, just the way in which they worked and in how they felt. It felt good, not different. In each situation all the kids were working in groups, not just that one top group. I'd say there were usually 4-5 groups in a class or 20-30 kids. The teacher spent time with each group in most of these situations. In our math in middle school (this was the math class before Algebra) the teacher didn't spend really any time with our group and I was ok with that because math was my thing and I didn't need someone to teach it to me and neither did the other kids I was working with. We could ask questions if we had them, but I rarely had them. I really liked being able to work independently in that way where I was capable. Once we were in Algebra, we were no longer ability grouped.

I don't think we were ever ability grouped in science, which is ironically my passion and where I have spent my career. Once we were in middle school we were tracked into honors vs not-honors classes across the board, so even though we weren't ability grouped we were skipped ahead in science. Once we were in high school we had a wide array of classes in science to choose from, and we were allowed to take advanced courses when we were ready, not based on what grade we were in.

polarbear

I think that polarbear is partially right, at least from my observations locally.

There are the status-conscious parents who want the LABEL without the real challenge (which their kids can't actually meet). For that group, we probably need to have "Gifted" classrooms and "Gifted*" ones. That way the teachers have some idea what they should be offering. While this is a good idea, it would never work. Somebody would rat out the administrator who sensibly tried that.


Back to polarbear's observations-- I think it IS true that if you have the full spectrum of ability in a classroom, peeling off one tail or the other shifts the mean (where teaching is aimed in that classroom) downward or upward. This is naturally not good news for the (now) top/bottom of the remaining distribution, since teaching is shifted disproportionately toward the TAIL opposite where the bulk of the learners in that room lie. Teachers naturally aim at the middle of the classroom, or slightly under it. So yes, removing the top 10% has a pretty profound (and negative) impact on the students at the 75th-90th percentiles, who remain in the room. I'm less convinced that removing the top 2% does that, because there just aren't that many of those children. In four classrooms of 25 students each, after all, that's just 2 students. Not even one per class.

Peeling both top 5-10% AND bottom 5-10% away would probably work better-- and I strongly suspect that this is why historical data shows that tracking/grouping works and works WELL, while contemporary data is sometimes more mixed.

However, LRE and mainstreaming make it a legal imperative to not peel away the left side of the distribution-- only the right.

It's all about the statistics. Interesting to think about in the abstract, but a fairly knotty problem pragmatically when one considers inclusive practices for those with significant disability as the reason for being in that lower group.

We encountered success in a strongly mixed-ability 4th/5th class in a public school. The principal was strongly committed to "pushing in" so that to the extent possible, she put all her resources into the classrooms - no pull outs for anything. As a result, the class had 27 kids and two (talented) full time teachers, plus a student teacher, and various specialists coming and going, as well as 1-2 aides. Having 2 full time teachers plus help makes a huge difference in being able to differentiate. For example, our twins read The Hunger Games with their reading group as 4th graders in that class, but there were also kids with severe developmental disabilities.

This, with minor differences, is the plan our district follows. I agree, it can work out well, though I think it is essential to have excellent teaching and at least a few near-peers. (Great when both happen, not so much otherwise).

Also, obviously this model falls apart when kids get to later middle school and switch classes/teachers- this is where our school model falls apart, in 7th grade where everyone switches classes but there are no accel/honors classes yet. So no differentiation as each teacher has 90-100 students, yet all abilities are lumped together.

I'm also pretty confident that low student: teacher ratio is critical to success.

One of the reasons I have heard from the school district for having mixed-ability classes is that by exposing those students who are not identified as gifted to the same material as gifted children, it brings up their level of learning even if it is not to the level of gifted. They are examining gifted education programs not only as to how it affects the gifted child, but the non-gifted child as well.

A few reasons I have heard from at least one parent whose child is NOT in the gifted programs is that 1) her DD has more classes with children who may have behavioral issues which disrupts the class and her learning 2) her child may not feel she can take the higher-level classes in high school because she is not in the gifted classes in middle school 3) the pace is slower because the level to which they are teaching is lower since the higher-ability children are not in the classroom.

"Can" it work? Yes, however, studies show that the majority of the time it has a much reduced affect as compared to pull-out programs for multiple reasons. First, few teachers understand how to be effective in a mixed-ability classroom and it usually takes specific training in order to do so. Second, it's far too easy for a GT teacher to simply become a second set of hands or "assistant" to the normal classroom teacher. Most schools are short on budget and short on teachers, it's convenient for them to use the GT teachers as substitutes when other teachers are gone, to "model" differentiation to class room teachers, or simply as support for an over crowded class room. Third, generally speaking, teachers are territorial and control freaks (I know, unfair stereo type but there is some truth to most stereo types) and they don't like other teachers intruding on their students, their classroom, and their teaching time. The truly important thing here are the TEACHERS and their ability. A good GT teacher will make any opportunity for GT kids to cluster a valuable experience, a less qualified GT teacher will do little in any cluster grouping to make the experience valuable.

As is typical, I see a great deal of discussion about the academic needs of a good gifted program and either nothing or almost nothing of the social / emotional aspect of gifted education and support. The best gifted programs I've experienced aren't just a list of classes available but also have a specific curriculum that is covered in a pull-out setting to educate gifted students on social / emotional issue, unique circumstances and issues those students are likely to experience BECAUSE they're gifted and how to deal / overcome them or where to seek help.

Often times, addressing the academic portion of a gifted child's life is the EASY part in comparison to the social / emotional aspect of a gifted child's life. If I had an ideal program I'd want someone well trained in this who isn't just a teacher but a gifted counselor as well.

I'm not sure that particular point is valid, because I've never seen or heard of a class going faster because a small segment of the class is higher-ability. What usually happens is that those students are held back while the rest catch up.

Well, the pace may be far from ideal for those at the top, but if you remove them, the mean has just undeniably shifted toward slower/lower readiness levels.